/^vsfoTpfiwc^ 


BR  146  .S7  1920 
Spinka,  Matthew,  1890-1972 
Christianity  and  church 
history 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS 


C!)ri0tlanit^  anb  C!)urc!) 
f|i0tor^ 


PROFESSOR  MATTHEW  SPINKA.  M.  A..  B.  D. 
Herman  Rust  Professor  of  Church  Historij 
in   Central  ■Theological  Seminary   of  the 
Reformed  Church    in   the    United  States. 


Delivered  before  the  Ohio  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Church  in  the  United  States,  during  its  Ninet 
seventh   Annual   Session,    in  Wilson   Avenue 
Reformed  Church,   Columbus,    Ohio,  Thursday 
evening,  October  7,  1920.      ^zs^^      -f^s*-^      sz^^ 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS 


Cj)ri0tianit^  anb  Ci^urcl^ 


PROFESSOR  MATTHEW  SPINKA.  M.  A..  B.  D. 

Herman  Rust  Professor  of  Church  Historg 
in  Central  Theological  Seminarg  of  the 
Reformed  Church    in   the    United  States. 


Delivered  before  the  Ohio  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Church  in  the  United  States,  during  its  Ninety- 
seventh  Annual  Session,  in  Wilson  Avenue 
Reformed  Church,  Columbus,  Ohio,  Thursday 
evening,  October  7,  1920.       S2s^^ 


u 


program 


Rev.  Henry  J.  Christman,  D.  D., 

President  Central  Theological   Seminai-y,  Presiding. 

Prelude 

Invocation 

Anthem 

Scripture  Reading,  Rev.  E.  D.  Wettach,  D.  D.,  Member  Board  of 
Trustees. 

Gloria  Patri 

Prayer,  Rev.  E.  M.  Beck,  Secretary  Board  of  Visitors 

Charge  to  the  Professor  Elect,  Prof.  F.  W.  Kennedy,  Dean  Heidel- 
berg University,  Member  Board  of  Visitors 

Induction  into  Office,  Rev.  J.  P.  Stahl,  D.  D.,  President  Board  of 
Visitors 

Hymn 

Inaugural  Address,  "Christianity  and  Church  History,"  Prof.  Mat- 
thew Spinka,  M.  A.,  B.  D. 

Doxology 

Benediction 


CHARGE  TO  THE  PROFESSOR  ELECT 

By  DEAN  KENNEDY 

My  Dear  Brother  Spinka: — One  year  ago  this  Synod,  on  the 
unanimous  recommendation  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the 
Board  of  Visitors  of  Central  Theological  Seminary,  without  a  dis- 
senting vote,  chose  you  to  be  the  Professor  of  Church  History. 
You  have  accepted  this  call,  we  trust,  as  coming  from  God  and 
have  signified  your  willingness  to  consecrate  yourself  to  the  office 
of  teaching  as  a  life-work.  In  thus  entering  upon  your  work,  you 
are  indeed  to  be  congratulated,  not  only  on  account  of  the  un- 
bounded confidence  of  this  Synod  but  also  because  of  the  unusual 
opportunity  that  has  been  placed  in  your  hands. 

By  way  of  reminding  you  of  the  reasonable  expectations  of  this 
Synod  from  you,  permit  me  to  mention  briefly  a  few  of  the  factors 
that  determined  your  selection.  You  were  chosen,  for  one  reason, 
because  you  are  a  young  man.  "The  glory  of  a  young  man  is  his 
strength."  You  have  the  vigor  of  body,  the  versatility  and  keen- 
ness and  alertness  of  mind  that  accompany  the  earlier  years  of  a 
normal,  human  life.  You  have  every  reason  to  look  forward  to  a 
long  period  of  service  in  this  field  wherein  you  should  become  in- 
creasingly useful  as  the  years  roll  on.  The  office  to  which  you 
have  been  chosen  can  best  be  filled  by  one  who  has  grown  into  it 
and  has  had  abundant  time  for  research,  reflection,  and  discipline 
of  mind. 

Again,  you  were  selected  because  you  seemed  to  this  Synod  to 
be  possessed  with  a  mind  peculiarly  fitted  both  by  training  and 
temperament  to  teach — and  particularly  to  teach  the  difficult  sub- 
jects placed  in  your  hands.  The  true  teacher  of  Theology  is  bom 
a  teacher.  He  may  be  improved  by  training  and  experience  but  he 
must  be  gifted  with  the  power  of  understanding  the  mental  and 
spiritual  difficulties  of  the  student  and  must  be  able  to  meet  these 
difficulties  if  he  is  to  succeed.  It  was  felt,  then,  by  those  who 
selected  you  to  this  work  that  you  possessed  the  vital  enthusiasm 
and  the  mental  and  moral  discernment  that  should  qualify  you 
to  be  not  only  a  scholar  in  the  real  sense  of  that  word  but  above 
all  else  a  teacher — able  to  impart  both  knowledge  and  enthusi- 
asm and  understanding  to  the  students  placed  in  your  care. 

Certainly  no  secondary  consideration  was  given  in  your  selec- 
tion to  the  measure  of  your  spirituality.  For,  to  be  a  true  his- 
torian of  the  Church  and  its  teachings,  intellectuality  must  ever 
be  under  the  guidance  of  a  mind  controlled  and  directed  by  the 
Spirit  of  Truth.  No  one  who  has  not  fellowship  with  Him  who  is 
the  Truth  can  discern  the  movement  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth  within 
the  troubled  waters  of  human  history. 

These  reasons,  among  others  which   might  be  mentioned,  im- 


pelled  this  Synod  therefore  to  commit  this  important  trust  to 
your  hands.  And  these  reasons  suggest  the  most  weighty  con- 
siderations which  you  should  take  to  heart  as  you  contemplate  the 
duties  which  you  are  now  officially  to  assume  and  the  vows  which 
you  now  undertake  to  perform. 

I  charge  you,  therefore,  to  be  true  to  the  office  of  Teaching. 
You  have  been  selected  and  are  to  be  set  apart  not  only  to  delve 
into  the  truth  for  your  own  intellectual  satisfaction  and  mental 
pleasure,  but  also,  and  especially  that  you  may  impart  to  the 
young  people  who  sit  at  your  feet  that  knowledge  that  will  make 
them  able  to  know  and  understand  the  great  things  that  God  has 
wrought  through  men  in  the  past  and  so  to  render  them  qualified 
to  go  out  to  become  inspirers  of  others.  That  is  to  say,  that  you 
are  never  to  forget  that  with  all  your  learning  and  with  all  your 
teaching,  you  are  to  remember  that  your  chief  product  is  to  be 
true  ministers  of  Christ  trained  and  instructed  so  to  use  their 
knowledge  as  to  bring  unto  men  the  everlasting  Gospel.  If  your 
teaching  shall  result  in  merely  making  scholars;  if  your  investiga- 
tions shall  result  in  merely  whetting  your  own  intellectual  appe- 
tite for  knowledge  without  spiritual  understanding,  your  achieve- 
ments, distinguished  as  they  may  be  from  some  points  of  view, 
will  fail  of  their  true  end  and  purpose.  Whatever  else  you  do, 
therefore,  magnify  your  teaching,  and  may  your  chief  joys  be  in 
the  development  of  those  precious  human  souls  that  you  shall 
influence  for  time  and  for  eternity. 

I  charge  you,  in  the  second  place,  to  be  true  to  the  Church 
and  the  Synod  which  have  not  only  signally  honored  you  but  have 
also  placed  within  your  hands  such  a  sacred  trust.  In  assuming 
this  position,  it  is  presumed  that  you  have  carefully  and  prayer- 
fully considered  the  vows  you  are  to  make  and  the  obligations  to 
be  assumed.  For  they  are  of  no  ordinary  importance  and  serious- 
ness. I  take  it  that  no  reasonable  member  of  this  Synod  expects 
any  formal  statement  of  doctrine  to  be  an  intellectual  straight- 
jacket  for  any  minister  of  the  gospel  or  teacher  of  theology.  But, 
the  Synod  may  reasonably  expect  of  all  those  who  take  upon  them- 
selves such  sacred  obligations  as  aie  here  laid  down,  both  in- 
tellectual honesty  and  moral  conviction  in  their  interpretation  of 
those  truths  that  lie  at  the  base  of  the  evangelical  faith.  The 
impulsiveness  and  mental  vivacity  of  youth  should  be  chastened  and 
sobered  by  constant  contact  with  the  great  lessons  which  the  experi- 
ence of  the  Church  teaches  us  when  we  calmly  listen  to  the  words  of 
admonition  which  come  out  of  the  past.  Remember  that  Truth 
is  eternal  even  though  the  furnishings  may  alter  as  the  ages  come 
and  go. 

Finally,  I  charge  you  to  take  heed  unto  the  necessity  of  growth 
in  grace  as  well  as  in  the  knowledge  of  things  spiritual.  Your 
work  will,  by  its  own  peculiar  nature,  bring  to  you  peculiar  tempta- 


tions  which  will  be  as  subtile  as  they  are  destructive  of  spiritual 
power.  Like  the  Savior  you  will  be  placed  upon  the  pinnacle  of 
opportunity  and  privilege  only  to  be  tempted  to  cast  yourself  down 
upon  the  rocks  through  the  drawing  power  of  the  false  praise  of 
men  and  the  insidious  influence  of  personal  pride.  You  must, 
therefore,  constantly  cultivate  within  yourself  the  spirit  of  child- 
like humility  and  reliance  upon  our  common  source  of  power 
which  will  enable  you  to  lead  a  life  of  simplicity  and  spiritual  de- 
votion before  all  men  and  especially  before  your  students  who  will 
inevitably  become  a  part  of  you  because  of  their  daily  contact  with 
you.  To  send  these  men  out  Spirit-filled,  you  must  be  filled  with 
the  Spirit  yourself.  For  your  streams  of  inflfuence  will  flow  no 
higher  than  their  source.  Be  true  to  Christ,  therefore,  not  merely 
as  the  Great  Teacher,  but  also  as  the  constant  Companion  of  your 
life.  May  His  Life  grow  in  you  more  and  more,  becoming  the 
power  whence  flows  all  your  words  and  ways.  And  may  He 
crown  you  with  abundant  success  as  you  witness  to  your  students 
and  the  world  of  the  greatness  and  the  grandeur  of  His  Everlast- 
ing Truth. 

In  the  name  of  this  Synod,  I  bespeak  for  you  the  most  hearty 
sympathy,  co-operation,  and  fellowship  in  this  great  work  which 
you  are  now  officially  to  assume.  May  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church  keep  and  preserve  you  in  strength  of  body  and  mind 
through  a  long  and  useful  life;  may  your  influence  and  power  for 
good  in  the  Church  increase  with  the  passing  years;  and  may  the 
relation  here  established  contribute  to  the  growth  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Eighteousness  and  to  the  glory  of  our  Heavenly  Teacher  and 
Guide. 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS 

Cl)ri6tianitp  ana  Ct)urcl)  i^fetorp 

By  PROFESSOR  SPINKA 

Dear  Fathers  and  Brethren: — It  is  fitting  that  the  present 
moment,  significant  to  this  reverend  body  and  most  solemn  in  the 
life  of  the  present  speaker,  should  be  devoted  to  a  discussion  of 
some  normative  and  regulative  principle,  necessary  to  the  deeper 
understanding  and  interpretation  of  the  truths  of  Christianity. 
As  such  I  venture  to  suggest  the  subject  of  "Christianity  and 
Church  History." 

If,  first  of  all,  we  apply  ourselves  to  the  definition  of  our 
terms,  v/e  find  that  the  concept  of  the  "Church" — in  our  present 
usage — can  not  be  defined  in  any  such  theological  terms  as  "the 
totality  of  the  elect,"  for  the  simple  and  obvious  reason  that  we 
can  not,  or  dare  not,  determine  who  the  elect  of  any  particular  age 
were.  Moreover,  it  would  be  presumptuous  for  us  to  anticipate 
the  final  judgments  of  the  Great  Judge;  our  task  is  merely  that 
of  recording  and  interpreting  the  movements  of  history.  We  must, 
therefore,  necessarily  include  in  our  concept  that  larger  and  more 
tangible  company  which  throughout  the  ages  comprised  the  visible, 
or  even  merely  the  officially  recognized.  Christian  Church.  Thus 
at  the  very  outset  we  perceive  that  our  concepts  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  spirit  of  Christianity  may  not  always  coincide,  as,  in 
reality,  they  often  did  not  coincide.  Such  a  Church,  then,  was 
composed  of  men  and  women,  many  of  whom  were  saints,  and  many 
others  who  were  sinners,  and  most  of  whom  were  a  mixture  of 
both.  There  were  men  like  Francis  of  Assisi,  whose  Christ-like 
lives  were  God's  little  poems,  revealing  what  a  divine  thing  the 
human  life  can  become;  while  there  were  others  whose  bloody 
deeds  proclaim  them  to  have  been  nearer  to  the  Pit  than  to  the 
Gospel  of  Love.  Thus  Church  History,  being  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons, speaks  not  only  of  Thomas  a  Kempis  and  John  Hus,  but  also 
mentions  Benedict  IX  of  infamous  memory,  who,  as  pope,  dis- 
graced the  papal  throne — if  that  were  possible  to  do  after 
the  many  choice  scoundrels  who  had  preceded  him.  On 
the  pages  of  Church  History  John  Calvin,  to  his  great  horror, 
might  find  himself  side  by  side  with  the  Duke  of  Alva  and  with 
Arminius,  and  Jonathan  Edwards  jostle  Torquemada  in  the  crowd. 

6 


Moreover,  for  the  sake  of  impartiality,  we  must  include  even  such 
a  man  as  James  I.  of  England,  for  the  part  he  played  at  the  Hamp- 
ton Court  Conference,  though  we  may  concur  with  the  contem- 
porary judgment  that  he  was  "the  wisest  fool  in  Christendom"; 
and  we  must  place  him  face  to  face  with  those  self-same  Pilgrim 
Fathers  whom  he  undertook  to  "harry  out  of  his  kingdom."  There- 
fore, at  the  very  outset  I  wish  to  make  it  plain  that  under  the 
designation  of  "the  Church"  we  shall  include  indiscriminately  all 
those  who  stood  in  an  official,  recognized  relation  to  the  organiza- 
tion which  claimed  to  represent  and  perpetuate  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  must  ever  express  our  deepest  regrets 
that  Church  History  can  give  us  but  an  inadequate  glimpse  of  the 
multitudes  of  faithful  and  devoted  believers  whose  humble  lot  did 
not  bring  them  to  the  notice  of  the  historian;  and  yet,  these  had 
"trials  and  mockings  and  scourgings,  yea,  moreover  of  bonds  and 
imprisonment:  they  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn  asunder,  they 
were  tempted,  they  were  slain  with  the  sword:  they  went  about 
in  sheepskins,  in  goatskins:  being  destitute,  afflicted,  ill-treated, 
(of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy),  wandering  in  deserts  and 
mountains  and  caves,  and  the  holes  of  the  earth."  These  mute, 
inglorious  heroes  of  the  Faith  the  ungrateful  posterity  does  not 
remember,  for  in  this  world  of  ours  "many  a  flower  is  bom  to 
blush  unseen  and  waste  its  sweetness  on  the  desert  air." 

Ours  is  the  task,  then,  a  thankless  one,  of  chronicling  the  out- 
ward, corporate,  political  life  of  the  Church,  for  the  divine  life 
which  dwells  in  the  hearts  of  believing  men  is  recorded  only  in 
the  Book  of  Life,  which  no  mortal  man  was  ever  permitted  to  read. 

The  other  two  terms,  i.  e.,  history,  and  Christianity,  need  no 
extended  explanation.  By  "history"  I  do  not  mean  a  recital  of 
a  succession  of  events  arranged  in  chronological  order,  but  that 
term  signifies  to  me  the  interplay  of  cause  and  effect,  and  the 
growth  and  development  of  the  various  forces  constituting  the 
course  of  events.  But  I  wish  not  to  be  understood  to  mean  some 
mechanistic  scheme  of  things,  by  which  this  world  could  be  con- 
strued in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  a  freight  train,  the  caboose 
of  which  is  drawn  by  the  car  ahead,  which  in  turn  is  pulled  by  the 
car  ahead,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum;  and  should  some  inquisitive  body 
ask  us  for  a  "primal  mover,"  on  this  scheme  we  would  have  to  an- 
swer that  there  is  no  "primal  mover,"  there  is  no  engine,  there  is 
nothing  but  an  infinite  number  of  cars  ahead  of  the  last  one.  Neither 
do  I  wish  to  be  accused  of  any  such  theory  as  Mr.  Buckle  advocates 
in  his  "History  of  Civilization  in  England,"  wherein  not  men  or 
institutions,  but  fixed,  immutable  laws  of  nature  govern  the  course 
of  events.  On  the  basis  of  this  rigidly  mathematical  theory  the 
author  tries  to  prove  the  possibility  of  predicting  the  necessary 


course  of  events  in  human  history,  as,  for  instance,  the  eclipse  of 
the  sun  can  be  predicted.  Nor  do  I  wish  to  commit  myself  to  any 
such  fatalistic  view  of  history  as  Tolstoy,  in  his  "Voyna  i  Mir" 
("War  and  Peace")  portrayed  with  such  profound  art.  He  con- 
ceives history  as  an  onward  rush  of  inevitable,  quasi-impersonal 
social  movements,  of  which  men  are  as  it  were  unconscious  tools. 
Thus  the  old  General  Kutuzov  does  not  direct  or  bring  about  the 
crushing  defeat  of  Napoleon  at  the  battle  of  Borodino;  he  merely 
functions  as  a  tool  of  the  Inevitable  Movement  of  Fate.  Carlyle, 
on  the  other  hand,  postulates  the  opposite  interpretation,  that  great 
men  produce  great  eras.  In  distinction  to  these  views,  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  genetic  view  of  history,  which  uses  the  categories  of 
life  and  organic  growth  as  terms  of  interpretation  of  the  complex 
phenomena  of  history,  presents  least  diflBculty. 

Christianity,  finally,  could  be  defined,  in  short,  as  a  life  animated 
and  directed  by  the  spirit  of  the  Living  Christ.  It  may  be  helpful 
to  quote  St.  Augustine's  maxim  in  this  connection :  "Dilige  et  quod 
vis  fac," — if  you  but  love  (God),  you  may  do  as  you  incline,  for 
Augustine  believes  that  you  will  then  of  necessity  incline  in  the 
right  direction.  Or,  in  other  words,  Christianity  is  a  life,  directed 
not  only  by  the  express  teachings  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  but  also 
by  His  principles,  testified  to  by  His  living  Spirit,  by  which  are  to 
be  determined  such  matters  as  were  not  directly  taught  by  our 
Divine  Master  in  the  days  of  His  flesh. 

From  this  introductory  treatment  of  the  theme  it  is  evident 
that  history  of  the  Church  is  not  always  identical  with  Christian- 
ity, and,  in  fact,  can  be  diametrically  opposed  to  it.  Thus  the  prob- 
lem could  be  formulated  either  as  Church  History  versus  Chris- 
tianity, or  Church  History  identical  with  Christianity,  or  Church 
History  as  embodying  Christianity  in  lesser  or  greater  degree. 
Which  of  these  relations  does  Church  History  sustain  to  Chris- 
tianity, and  what  is  to  be  our  standard  of  judgment,  according  to 
which  to  solve  this  problem? 

There  are  several  typical  answers  to  this  question,  some  of  which 
I  beg  leave  to  recount.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  common 
theory,  held,  I  suppose,  by  the  greater  part  of  Christendom — 
numerically  speaking — that  the  Church  is  a  divine  repository  of 
the  faith  received  from  the  Lord  and  His  apostles,  which  faith  she 
held  inviolate  and  without  the  least  fundamental  change  through- 
out the  ages.  Our  first  impression  upon  hearing  this  sentiment 
is  that  of  grandeur  and  authority.  Before  our  mental  eyes  loom 
the  venerable  figures  of  such  defenders  of  the  apostolic  tradition 
and  the  unity  of  the  Christian  Catholic  Church  as  were  Irenaeus, 
and  especially  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  who  with  his  "Extra  ecclesiam, 
nemo  salvatur"  waged  war  against  all  who  dared  to  suggest  a 
possibility  of  an  independent  interpretation.  Here  is  a  church 
which  claims  to  lead  us  to  the  very  fountain-head  of  truth;  amid 

8 


the  change  and  decay  of  empires  and  peoples,  mutations  of  science 
and  philosophy,  she  stands  firmly  upon  the  basis  of  that  which 
"has  been  held  always,  everjrwhere,  and  by  all." 

But  it  needs  only  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  the 
Church  to  find  ourselves  rudely  disillusioned  of  such  a  grandiose 
dream.  This  slight  acquaintance,  however,  is  not  generally  pos- 
sessed by  the  ordinary  person,  for  whom  everything  between  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  acts  of  his  grandfather  is  enshrouded 
in  utter  darkness.  This  audience,  however,  knows  that  there  was 
probably  no  institution  so  chameleon-like  as  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  which  is  a  perfect  wonder  in  adapting  itself  to  its  sur- 
roundings; and  as  for  the  Greek  communion,  with  its  gorgeous 
ceremonials  and  its  spiritual  deadness  withal,  there  surely  is  but 
little  to  remind  us  of  the  original  purity  and  simplicity  of  the 
Apostolic  Church.  How  can  anyone  speak  of  holding  inviolate  the 
original  reposit  of  the  faith,  if  he  once  faces  squarely  such  a 
study  as  that  of  the  pre-Nicene  and  the  Nicene  period?  Who  can 
ever  hope  to  understand  the  subtle  thought  of  that  momentous  age 
without  a  generous  study  of  Greek  philosophy?  Do  we  not  find 
it  impossible  to  express  the  thought  of  the  age  without  using  such 
original  words  as  "homooiisios"  and  "hypostasis"?  The  whole  dis- 
cussion of  the  Christological  problem  is  so  thoroughly  saturated 
with  Hellenic  philosophical  and  psychological  concepts  that  a  poor 
Saint  Peter — I  dare  say — would  find  himself  strangely  perplexed 
as  to  this  "original  reposit  of  the  faith."  Is  it  necessary  to  point 
out  the  various  heresies  of  the  Roman  bishops,  for  instance  the 
monothelitic  heresy  of  Pope  Honorius  I.,  which  was  repeatedly  con- 
demned by  his  successors  and  finally  by  the  Sixth  General  Council 
in  680?  When  heresy  is  found  in  the  highest  places,  what  becomes 
of  the  infallibility  of  the  pope,  or  of  any  talk  of  preserving  in- 
violate the  original  faith?  It  would  be  useless  to  spend  our  time 
in  elaborating  a  fact  well  known  to  all,  that  the  Church  of  the 
Middle  Ages  appropriated  Aristotle  so  thoroughly  that  he,  a  pagan 
philosopher,  became  THE  philosopher  of  the  Church.  But  will 
someone  try  to  convince  us  that  no  fundamental  change  was 
wrought  thereby?  And  what  shall  we  say  of  all  the  heathen  in- 
fluences which  played  upon  the  Church,  either  coarsening  the 
earlier  lofty  and  spiritual  conceptions,  such  as  that  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  was  degraded  by  the  dogma  of  transubstantia- 
tion;  or  introducing  heathen  notions  outright,  such  as  the  whole 
ascetic  idea  of  monasticism,  which  worked  on  the  theory  that 
the  more  miserable  you  are  the  more  God  loves  you;  or  that  of  the 
worship  of  relics  and  the  saints,  the  adoration  and  worship  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  a  whole  host  of  other  similar  practices?  Will 
someone  take  upon  himself  the  heroic  task  of  proving  that  the 
dogma  of  papal  infallibility  introduced  no  change,  when  the  fact 
that  the  Council  of  Constance  represented  a  triumphant  assertion 


of  the  opposite  theory,  namely,  that  a  general  council  is  superior 
to  the  pope,  stares  him  in  the  face? 

Contrary  to  this  static  view,  with  its  clumsy  claim  of  immuta- 
bility, is  the  genetic  view,  emphasizing  life  and  growth,  and  thus 
the  implicated  concomitant  of  change.  "For  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  like  unto  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,"  said  the  Master,  "which  a 
man  took  and  sowed  in  his  field;  which  indeed  is  less  than  all 
his  seeds;  but  when  it  is  grown,  it  is  greater  than  the  herbs,  and 
becometh  a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  the  heaven  come  and  lodge 
in  the  branches  thereof."  "So  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a  man 
should  cast  seed  upon  the  earth;  and  should  sleep  and  rise  night 
and  day,  and  the  seed  should  spring  up  and  grow,  he  knoweth  not 
how.  The  earth  beareth  fruit  of  herself;  first  the  blade,  then 
the  ear,  then  the  full  grain  in  the  ear."  On  the  basis  of  this 
view  we  need  not  bewail  the  fact  that  the  Apostolic  Church  did 
not  always  remain  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  but  grew  into  a 
mighty  tree  which  soon  will  spread  its  branches  over  the  face  of 
the  whole  world.  Nor  can  we  expect  that  the  outward  form  will 
remain  unchanged  and  immutable,  for  we  are  told  expressly  that 
it  will  be  "first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  grain  in  the 
ear."  It  would  be  ridiculous  to  see  a  full-grown  man  wearing  the 
swaddling  clothes  of  his  infancy.  This  whole  process  of  growth 
requires  change  and  development,  but  this,  far  from  being  a  matter 
of  regret,  is  a  matter  earnestly  to  be  desired,  provided  that  an  ex- 
treme caution  be  taken  that  all  the  shoots  of  the  tree  are  from 
the  self -same  Gospel  mustard  seed,  and  no  parasitic  noxious  weeds 
be  permitted  among  them.  In  other  words,  we  must  take  heed  that 
the  changing  and  developing  forms  of  the  life  of  the  Church  ex- 
press the  spirit  of  our  Lord  and  Master, 

If  this  simple  parable  of  the  Great  Teacher  were  kept  in  mind 
and  adhered  to,  what  a  host  of  distracting  problems  would  be 
settled!  Take  for  instance  the  controversy  about  the  form  of 
baptism;  the  very  question  which  usually  forms  the  basis  of  such 
a  discussion  betrays  a  totally  erroneous  conception  of  the  subject: 
what  form  of  baptism  is  of  absolutely  binding  force?  Is  it  immer- 
.sion  or  sprinkling?  On  the  basis  of  the  static  theory,  wherein 
no  growth  is  recognized,  only  one  answer  is  possible:  the  more 
primitive  form  would  have  to  be  adhered  to  as  of  an  absolutely  bind- 
ing force.  But  on  the  genetic  view,  in  which  we  do  not  recognize 
any  absolute,  but  only  relative,  forms,  we  have  a  perfect  right  to 
ask:  what  of  it  if  the  form  did  outgrow  the  primitive  custom  and 
changed  to  baptism  by  sprinkling,  as  long  as  it  is  the  sign  of  the 
self -same  and  all-important  grace?  Were  it  not  better  that  we 
stress  the  grace  instead  of  the  form?  Besides,  if  we  were  to  be 
literalists,  why  not  go  the  whole  length,  and  since  every  example 
of  actual  baptism  mentioned  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 
(i.,  e.,  where  the  formula  is  included),  is  a  baptism  "into  the  name 

10 


of  Jesus"  only,  and  not  a  baptism  "into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,"  would  not  consistency  compel  such 
a  literalist  to  follow  the  example  of  the  primitive  Apostolic  Church 
in  this  important  respect  also? 

To  take  another  example:  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  union  of  the  Protestant  churches  is  the  question  whether 
the  primitive  polity  recognized  two  orders — presbyters  and  dea- 
cons— or  three  orders,  adding  that  of  bishops.  The  episcopal 
churches  make  a  great  deal  of  the  so-called  "apostolic  succession," 
although  the  Apostles  were  not  bishops,  and  their  office  differed 
widely  from  that  of  the  bishops.  Personally,  I  find  evidence  pre- 
ponderatingly  in  favor  of  the  two-office  theory;  namely,  that  dea- 
cons and  presbyters  were  the  only  officers  of  the  primitive  church, 
while  the  name  "bishop"  (episcopos — overseer)  refers  to  the  pre- 
siding presbyter.  But  even  though  we  proved  to  the  full  satisfac- 
tion of  all  that  this  was  the  primitive  polity  of  the  Church,  yet  we 
must  admit  that  this  system  proved  itself  inadequate  in  the  struggle 
which  the  Church  waged  against  Gnosticism,  and  therefore  was 
superceded  by  the  three-office  polity,  when  the  Church  believed  it 
expedient  to  elevate  the  office  of  the  bishop  into  a  normative  and 
i>egulative  one. 

Therefore,  in  view  of  these  facts  which  plainly  show  that  the 
primitive  Church  did  not  consider  herself  tied  down  irrevocably 
to  any  particular  forms,  but  felt  free  to  change  them  in  order  to 
me«t  the  deinand  of  the  times,  I  plead  for  an  essential  freedom 
from  BONDAGE  to  these  and  all  other  forms.  For  "the  letter 
killeth,  the  Spirit  giveth  life!"  It  seems  to  me  that  if  we  are  to 
make  any  essential  progress  toward  unity  of  Christendom,  or  at 
least,  of  Protestantism,  we  must  adopt  some  such  principle. 

If  the  foregoing  diagnosis  be  correct,  namely,  that  we  are 
living  in  a  growing  and  developing  world,  then  this  conception  im- 
plies that  we  are  constantly  outgrowing  the  old  forms  of  thought 
and  expression. 

"Our    little    systems    have    their   day; 
They    have    their    day    and    cease    to    be: 
They  are  but  broken  lights  of  Thee 
And  Thou,  O  Lord,   art  more  than  they." 

Or  as  Carlyle  expressed  it  long  ago:  "Church  History,  did  it 
speak  but  wisely,  would  have  momentous  secrets  to  teach  us:  nay, 
in  its  highest  degree  it  were  a  sort  of  continued  Holy  Writ;  our 
Sacred  Books  being,  indeed,  only  a  history  of  the  primeval  Church, 
as  it  first  arose  in  man's  soul,  and  sjnnbolically  embodied  itself  in 
his  external  life."  The  God  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  of  Saint  Paul 
and  Augustine,  is  not  dead;  He  was  the  God  of  John  Calvin  and  of 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  and  is  the  God  of  the  men  of  this  present 
age;  neither  has  He  left  us  without  a  witness  of  His  continuous 
presence,  but  speaks  to  our  souls  daily,  if  we  only  would  listen. 

11 


"For  He  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us:  for  in  Him  we  live,  and 
move,  and  have  our  being." 

Now  if  that  be  true — as  it  undoubtedly  is — the  lesson  of  the 
"Chambered  Nautilus"  is  still  in  point: 

"Build   thee  more   stately   mansions,   O   my   soul. 

As   the   swift   seasons   roll! 

Leave  thy  low- vaulted  past!" 

For  must  we  confess  that  our  faith  is  less  vital  than  that  of 
the  generations  past?  Is  our  Christian  consciousness  so  weak  and 
feeble  that  we  must  repeat  an  expression  of  the  faith  of  our  fathers, 
instead  of  giving  vent  to  the  deepest  experiences  of  our  own  souls? 
Can  we  not  say  in  our  own  words  and  in  the  thought-forms  of  the 
present  day  what  in  the  inmost  heart  of  our  hearts  we  hold  vital 
and  mighty?  As  Professor  A.  T.  Eobertson  expressed  the  same 
thought  in  a  recent  number  of  a  popular  homiletical  magazine: 
"The  confession  that  carries  weight  today,  as  of  old,  is  that  which 
bears  witness  to  what  Jesus  has  done  for  the  speaker.  It  is  the 
living  Christ  who  is  Lord  of  life  and  death.  One's  creed  should 
not  be  an  academic  declamation  or  declaration,  but  the  burning 
conviction  out  of  the  crucible  of  his  own  experience." 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  contemn  the  old;  I  merely  wish  to 
suggest  the  propriety  of  re-stating  in  new  terms  that  which  is 
eternally  true.  The  Apostles'  Creed — an  expression  of  Christian 
consciousness  honored  by  the  greater  part  of  Christendom — had 
its  origin  in  a  short  baptismal  formula  known  as  the  Old  Roman 
Symbol;  but  it  grew  and  continued  to  expand  until  the  beginning 
of  the  eighth  century  found  it  in  the  present  form.  Every  great 
struggle  of  the  Church  left,  as  it  were  a  scar,  permanently  pre- 
served in  that  ancient  "regula  fidei,"  and  each  successive  genera- 
tion of  believers  added  to  it  what  was  vital  and  important  of  the 
deepest  life  of  its  age.  Thus,  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  a  growing 
creed,  for  it  was  an  expression  of  a  living  Church.  Only  a  living 
thing  can  grow,  but  whatever  is  living  must  grow.  Woe  to  the 
Church  that  stops  growing!  It  is  a  sign  of  death,  and  a  dead 
thing  will  not  keep.    As  Goethe  has  it: 

"Grau,  theurer  Freund,  ist  alle  Theorie, 
Und   gruen   des   Lebens   gold'ner   Baum." 

Thus  no  creed  can  be  considered  as  the  final  and  absolute  ex- 
pression of  Christian  consciousness,  because  that  consciousness  is 
growing  and  vital,  dynamic,  and  because  that  consciousness  must 
use,  as  a  medium  of  expression,  thought-forms  of  its  day,  which, 
being  temporal  and  mutable,  are  subject  to  the  law  of  life — an 
everlasting  change.  An  illustration  will  serve  to  make  my  thought 
clearer:  suppose  one  of  us  found  in  his  garden,  while  digging — let 
us  say — for  fish-worms,  a  hidden  treasure  of  Spanish  gold  ducats 
of  the  days  of  Philip  II.  The  effigy  would  speak  to  us  of  the  glories 
of  a  king  upon  whose  dominions  the  sun  never  set.    And  yet,  his 

12 


cold,  stern  features  merely  recall  to  us  days  that  are  long  gone  by, 
and  a  world  that  is  dead.  The  intrinsic  value  of  the  gold  is  per- 
manent, but  its  particular  coinage  is  obsolete.  In  order  to  make 
the  ducats  current  legal  tender,  we  must  have  them  recast  into  the 
coin-forms  of  today. 

Another  thought  which  occurs  in  connection  with  the  develop- 
mental concept  of  history  is,  whether  it  is  possible  to  add  any  new 
values  to  those  already  contained  in  the  sum-total  of  the  cosmic  worth 
or,  in  other  words,  whether  there  is  a  possibility  of  bringing  forth 
something  which  has  not  been  there  before.  The  Preacher  would 
pessimistically  commit  us  to  the  philosophy  that  "there  is  nothing 
new  under  the  sun."  Likewise,  an  idealistic  philosopher  of  the  Hegel- 
ian school  would  have  a  hard  time  proving  that  there  is  any  real 
progress  in  the  world  at  all,  since,  according  to  his  view,  contradi- 
tions  and  discords,  i.  e.,  in  plain  English,  all  evil,  are  merely 
apparent.  Every  thesis  differentiates  from  itself  its  own  antithe- 
sis, that  is,  evil,  and  both  are  harmonized  in  their  common  synthe- 
sis. The  highest  synthesis  is  the  perfect  Absolute,  in  which  all 
good  and  evil  are  hannoni25ed.  Evil  is  merely  an  imperfect,  or  lim- 
ited, aspect  of  good.  Thus,  as  Hegel  expressed  himself  about 
Schelling's  "Identitaet-System,"  the  Absolute,  "is  a  Night  in  which 
all  cows  are  black."  "I  accept  the  Universe,"  was  the  gist  of  the 
whole  philosophy  of  Margaret  Fuller,  our  own  New  England  trans- 
cendentalist.  People  of  that  peculiar  type  of  mind  who  make  good 
Christian  Science  victims,  before  they  succumb,  are  likely  to  ex- 
press themselves  in  the  words  of  Browning:  "God  is  in  His  heaven, 
all  is  well  with  the  world."    But 

"There  are  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  Horatio, 
Than  are  dreamt  of  in  your  philosophy." 

Some  of  us  think  that  there  must  be  something  radically  wrong 
with  a  world  in  which  the  tragedy  of  the  Great  War  of  1914  could 
occur,  a  world  in  which  half  of  the  human  race  was  born  into 
squalid,  abject  poverty  without  the  aid  of  a  physician,  and  where 
one  billion  souls  live  without  the  knowledge  of  their  Savior  and  their 
Heavenly  Father. 

"as  if  Jesus  never  lived. 

And  as  if  He  never  died." 

If  all  were  well  with  the  world,  why  worry  about  the  teeming 
millions  of  Japan,  China,  India,  and  Africa?  Moreover,  how  do 
the  multitudes  of  Europe  manage  to  die  of  starvation  in  a  world 
in  which  "all  is  well?"  Why  our  anxious  thought  that  America 
might  die  of  overfeeding  and  choke  herself  in  the  fat  of  her  selfish- 
ness? Oh,  there  must  be  room  for  some  other  interpretation, 
which  would  give  us  a  chance  to  roll  up  our  sleeves  and  go  to  re- 
deeming the  wastes  of  this  world. 

Now,  if  history  is  a  development,  then  this  world  is  still  in  the 
making,  and  we  have  a  chance  to  improve  it.     This  is  a  world  in 

13 


the  rough,  and  God  is  engaged  in  chiseling  the  details  into  perfec- 
tion, using  us  as  His  tools.  This  genetic  philosophy  of  history 
is  nothing  new,  for  even  the  Hebrews  of  old  held  "that  God  is 
working  out  in  history  His  moral  purposes  in  the  world;"  but  we 
make  the  important  addition  that  He  is  not  working  through  some 
elect  nation,  but  through  every  one  of  US.  History  is  His  story, 
as  someone  remarked;  but  we  are  the  agents  through  whom  He 
carries  out  His  moral  purposes,  we  are  co-laborers  with  God!  If 
there  be  a  nation  in  bondage,  without  some  Moses  that  nation  will 
not  be  led  out!  It  is  our  task  to  carry  out  the  plans  of  God,  of 
converting  the  desert  wastes  into  blossoming  gardens,  of  banish- 
ing ignorance,  poverty,  and  vice,  of  shattering  into  pieces  the  mud- 
gods  of  the  world,  and  of  reconciling  men  to  God!  He  calls  us  to 
len^  ourselves  as  willing  instruments  for  the  bringing  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  upon  the  earth,  and  as  messengers  of  His  ever- 
lasting Grospel  of  Love  to  all  nations!  What  an  immense  task, 
and  what  a  glorious  privilege! 

Finally,  we  come  to  the  point  which  we  raised  at  the  beginning 
of  this  discussion:  if  we  work  on  this  principle  of  a  growing  and 
developing  world,  will  it  not  lend  itself  to  individualistic,  subjective 
interpretation,  and  will  not  many  go  astray?  The  answer  has 
already  been  given:  most  assuredly  it  will.  There  are  many  who 
went  astray,  and  if  we  look  about  us  at  the  present  day  we  find 
many  who  lost  the  straight  and  narrow  path,  for  our  day  is  be- 
wildered with  the  most  diverse  interpretations  as  to  what  Chris- 
tianity really  means.  But  that  does  not  prove  that  we  must  abon- 
don  the  fundamental  idea  of  development;  it  only  argues  for  a 
regulative,  normative  principle.  There  is  no  question  that  life 
is  frought  with  dangers;  but  once  a  man  is  bom  it  is  too  late  to 
avoid  the  risks  inherent  in  life,  and  there  is  nothing  to  do  but  either 
to  face  them  or  to  resign  the  trust  of  life.  And  still,  most  of  us 
take  the  chance.  Life  is  an  adventure,  and  God  is  trusting  us  a 
great  deal  when  He  commits  the  immortal  soul  into  our  keeping. 
There  are  untold  numbers  of  people  who  disappointed  God's  trust 
in  them,  and  made  a  most  sorry  mess  of  their  lives.  And  still  God 
continues  to  trust  us  with  this  priceless  gift — life.  Furthermore, 
if  God  vidshed  to  save  us  without  our  consent,  and  without  our  free 
choice  of  th<e  way  of  life  eternal,  no  soul  would  probably  be  lost, 
but  we  could  entertain  a  doubt  whether  such  souls  would  be  worth 
saving,  for  every  one  of  them  would  be  deprived  of  the  inestimable 
glory  of  being  a  free,  moral  agent.  Like  a  constitutional  king, 
we  "could  do  no  wrong,"  but  there  would  be  no  virtue  in  it.  A  pig 
can  do  no  wrong,  either,  for  a  pig  is  not  a  moral  agent.  If  Christ 
had  preached  his  Gospel  himself  to  all  the  world,  undoubtedly  He 
would  have  avoided  the  blunders  that  his  human  disciples  com- 
mitted; but  he  deliberately  chose  the  Twelve  as  His  co-laborers, 
and  entrusted  His  mission  into  their  hands,  that  "apart  from  us, 

14 


they  (who  do  not  know  God)  should  not  be  made  perfect."  And 
you  must  remember  that  among  His  disciples  there  was  a  Judas 
Iscariot,  and  a  Peter,  who,  with  a  curse  on  his  lips,  denied  His 
Lord  before  a  servant  girl.  Mistakes  and  blunders  are  the  lot 
of  every  human  being,  for  without  the  possibility  of  falling  into 
sin  there  is  no  virtue,  and  without  the  possibility  of  making  a 
mistake  there  is  no  action  whatever.  We  are  living  in  a  world 
where  it  is  better  to  dare  to  do  something  at  the  risk  of  making  a 
mistake,  rather  than  do  nothing  at  all  for  fear  of  blundering.  That 
would  be  the  greatest  blunder  of  all. 

Thus  what  we  need  is  a  standard,  a  regulative  principle,  by 
which  to  "test  the  spirits  whether  they  be  of  God."  That  principle 
is  not  far  to  seek :  it  is  the  spirit  of  the  Living  Christ.  We  worship 
an  ever  living  and  an  ever  present  Christ,  not  a  man  Jesus  who 
lived  some  twenty  centuries  ago.  He  is  with  us,  as  He  was  with 
His  company  of  Apostles,  to  guide,  direct,  teach,  and  lead  us.  "Lo, 
I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  Quakers 
spoke  of  being  led  by  the  "inner  light."  That  was  no  poetry,  no 
figure  of  speech,  and  no  fanaticism.  It  was  and  is  the  light  of  the 
Sun  of  Righteousness,  and  was  no  monopoly  of  the  Quakers;  for 
this  light  still  "lighteth  every  man  coming  into  the  world." 

This,  then,  we  propose  as  the  regulative  principle,  by  which 
to  determine  what  in  the  subject-matter  of  Church  History  is  truly 
Christian  and  what  is  not.  This  conclusion  is  so  simple  and  self- 
evident,  that  it  would  seem  like  an  inexcusable  trifling  to  subject 
you  to  such  a  long  discussion  for  the  sake  of  such  a  meagre  and 
self-evident  result.  And  yet  I  am  confident  that  this  plain  truth 
needs  to  be  emphasized  as  persistently  as  ever,  for  this  self-evident 
test  is  not  always,  in  fact,  very  seldom,  recognized  as  normative. 
A  strange  confusion  of  thought  prevails  about  this  point,  and  it 
would  seem  that  everything  else  is  usually  resorted  to  as  normative 
— tradition,  principle  of  papal  authority,  distorted  Scripture  quo- 
tations— rather  than  the  spirit  of  Christ.  Therefore,  we  maintain 
that  it  is  better  to  run  the  risks  of  appearing  trite,  rather  than  to 
take  for  granted  that  this  is  too  self-evident  to  need  extended  proof. 

It  is  a  common  fact,  however,  that  this  principle  of  the  "inner 
light"  often  lent  itself  to  all  sorts  of  vagaries  and  all  kinds  of 
purely  subjectivistic  interpretations.  That,  however,  is  an  instance 
of  an  abuse  of  a  good  principle  to  which  every  good  thing  is  liable. 
It  would  be  strange  indeed,  however,  if  the  voice  of  the  living 
Christ,  speaking  to  an  individual  heart,  were  not  found,  as  a  rule, 
in  essential  agreement  with  the  recorded  utterances  of  Christ  in 
the  Gospels,  and  with  the  general  Christian  consciousness  of  His 
Church  of  the  present  day.  This  voice  will  not  contradict  itself, 
and  will  be  heard  by  more  than  one.  This  consideration  lessens 
the  dangers  of  pure  subjectivity  and  the  abuse  to  which  the  princi- 
ple is  open,  and  thus  avoids  a  merely  individualistic  interpretation 

15 


of  the  view.  The  regulative  and  normative  principle,  by  which  we 
are  to  judge  whether  a  matter  be  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  or  not,  is 
not  left  to  the  mercy  of  pure  subjectivism,  but  is  determined  by  the 
three-fold  test:  the  individual  conscientious  conviction,  or  the  voice 
of  Christ  speaking  to  the  heart  of  man,  the  spirit  of  the  Gospels, 
and  the  concensus  of  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the  day. 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  allow  me  to  recapitulate  our  argument. 
The  problem  which  we  set  before  us  was  that  of  determining  the 
relation  of  Church  History  to  Christianity.  We  saw  that  Chris- 
tianity and  Church  History  are  not  synonymous  terms,  but  that 
the  history  of  the  Church  comprises  movements,  teachings,  and  lives 
of  men,  sustaining  all  degrees  of  consonance  or  dissonance  with 
Christianity,  from  the  lowest  pitch  to  the  highest.  Moreover,  in 
our  search  for  a  standard  of  judgment  as  to  what  is  true  to  the 
spirit  of  Christianity  and  what  is  not,  we  tried  to  set  forth  the 
genetic  philosophy  of  history  as  the  one  more  conformable  to  the 
facts  of  history  than  any  other  interpretation.  This  led  us  to  re- 
gard as  the  standard  of  judgment  the  spirit  of  the  living  Christ, 
which  is  cognizable  in  the  individual  consciousness,  in  the  Gbspels, 
and  in  the  concensus  of  the  body  of  believers. 

May  the  realization  of  our  sublime  privilege  as  co-laborers  with 
God,  and  of  the  truth  that  a  world  is  either  to  be  moulded  and 
transformed  by  and  through  us,  or  Christ's  glorious  conception  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God  will  not  be  realized,  inspire  us  to  a  whole- 
hearted and  absolute  surrender  of  ourselves  to  the  great  purposes 
of  God!  And  may  we  consecrate  our  body,  soul,  and  spirit  to  the 
great  ideal  of  the  bringing  of  the  Kingdom  of  our  Lord  upon  the 
earth,  and  to  the  task  of  spreading  His  gospel  over  the  width 
and  breadth  of  the  globe!  For  the  Gospel  of  Christ  is  the  only 
hope  of  a  world  perishing  in  sin,  and  without  Christ  its  doom  is 
sealed.  God  calls  us,  as  He  called  the  Crusaders  of  old,  to  fight 
the  forces  of  darkness;  may  this  be  a  day  in  which  we  consecrate 
anew  our  lives,  our  powers,  and  our  all! 

"Onwa;rd,    Christian    soldiers! 

Marching-  as  to  war; 
With  the  cross  of  Jesus 

Going  on  before! 
Christ,  the  Royal  Master 

Leads  against  the  foe; 
Forward  into  battle. 

See  His  banners  g-o! 

Crowns    and    thrones    may   perish. 

Kingdoms   rise  and  wane. 
But    the   Church    of   Jesus 

Constant  will   remain: 
Gates  of  hell  can  never 

'Gainst   that   Church   prevail: 
"We  have  Christ's  own  promise, 

And  that  can  not  fail." 

16 


:^Sr-tf, 


|%\ 

^ 

''feik.^j'*  a 

